jquery vs dojo vs yui etc
in [JavaScript]
|
Prev: Interactive web-based graphs for iPads?
Next: FAQ Topic - How can I disable the back button in a web browser? (2010-06-17)
From: Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn on 18 Jun 2010 13:44 Garrett Smith wrote: > Please see: > MessageID: hvbr3g$q0e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org Please use `news:' URIs as specified in RFC 5538� to refer to postings, here <news:hvbr3g$q0e$1(a)news.eternal-september.org> so that the posting being referred to can be viewed easily with the majority of newsreaders. TIA PointedEars ___________ � <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5538> -- var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = ( navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1 && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1 ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
From: John G Harris on 18 Jun 2010 16:01 On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 at 13:29:16, in comp.lang.javascript, VK wrote: >On Jun 17, 11:27�pm, John G Harris <j...(a)nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> Reasons for reinventing the wheel : >> >> 1 Because lorry tyres are too heavy for bicycles. >> 2 Because wire frame wheels are too fragile for lorries. >> 3 Because wire frame wheels were very right for aeroplanes in 1910 (see >> any good museum) but no good for jumbo jets. >> 4 Because wheels are no use for mud; use tracks instead. >> 5 Because vehicle wheels are far too big and expensive for supermarket >> trolleys. >> >> In other words, "Do not Reinvent the Wheel" is more often than not a >> substitute for thinking. > >It is not what reinventing the wheel means in the context which should >be clear from the quotation as given. People don't need to sit on a >wheel for now on, but: people don't need to find another equiradial >shape just because the wheel is already taken. According to your definition the inventors of JQuery were reinventing the wheel, so JQuery should be thrown away. John -- John Harris
From: Matt Kruse on 18 Jun 2010 16:54 On Jun 18, 12:34 pm, Garrett Smith <dhtmlkitc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 6/18/2010 7:12 AM, Matt Kruse wrote: > > I still believe that the way to combat jQuery and to help fix all the > > junk that it has spewed on the web is to create a library with a > > compatible subset of the jQuery API, and implement it correctly. Then > > people can switch over to it easily and comfortably, and get the > > benefit of more robust code. > You missed my outline post? > Please see: > MessageID: hvbr3g$q0...(a)news.eternal-september.org I don't see the relevance. > I'm going to wager you've not even started on following your own advice. I looked into it at one point. That's what http://MyJQuery.com (which I own) was going to be. The problem was time and desire on my part. > If you had, you probably would have realized that the design of jQuery > has fundamental problems (please see my earlier message). Obviously. That's why you would change the design. The API would be changed to not allow so much overloading. Just keep the stuff that is most common/useful. You would have a reduced set of jQuery functionality, but it would be robust. It would be sane. > Why do you think jQuery has had so many issues with upgrades? Primarily, because the jQuery team doesn't care much about backwards- compatibility. > Before reimplementing jQuery correctly, you'll first need to define what > "correctly" means. To some degree, yes. But you could begin and define as you go. > Documentation for the selectors are a good starting point. Sure, that would be fine. If I were to re-write jQuery, I would keep Sizzle as-is, even with bugs, and just document the things that won't work correctly. They are fairly minor, IMO. > Let us know how far you get with that. I have no intention of doing so. And thus, the problem. The people with the skill needed to make a great product rarely have the time or desire to do so. The less experienced have time, patience, and a lack of things to work on, and a desire for significance and "fame", and therefore starting writing the next monolithic library, and it becomes popular because they have the time to support, market, and evangelize it. *shrugs* Matt Kruse
From: S.T. on 18 Jun 2010 19:40 On 6/18/2010 7:12 AM, Matt Kruse wrote: > On Jun 18, 7:37 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn<PointedE...(a)web.de> > wrote: >> Matt is still not getting that (JS) libraries as a concept are not >> the issue, but the people writing them. > > Umm, that's not at all what the mantra has been in here for years. > Over and over and over it has been said by many that general-purpose > javascript libraries are a bad idea. > > My point has always been that general-purpose js libraries are a > _must_, and if the people with the skill to write them correctly don't > do so, then someone else will. And other people have. jQuery has lots > of problems. The coding of it and its design and the way the authors > attack problems are all quite poor. But it fills a need. Exactly. The fact that most CLJ regulars (the vocal ones, at least) can't comprehend why there's such demand for libraries is the same reason their critiques of libraries are technically accurate yet largely ignored. They can't see in context, nor anything less rigid than a true/false view. > Even when someone like DM comes along and writes "His Library", he's > missing the point. He may get the technical aspects more correct, but > he lacks the vision and social grace required to make the library > actually useful to most developers. It's like he's created a better > mousetrap, but completely drops the ball on manufacturing, marketing, > and distribution. Whereas something like jQuery suffers from poor > quality, but gets the other stuff right. DM's script may be solid but the project as a whole is a train wreck. It wasn't a project developed to solve a problem, rather was a script written in an attempt to mock other libraries. It was DOA before it saw daylight. > Turn on any infomercial and see how ridiculous the product is, yet see > how many people buy it and how rich the creators are. It doesn't > matter how great of a product you create if you can't get it out to > the masses! And if the masses are creating terrible web sites full of > broken script, and this is the problem that DM is trying to address, > then he's doing it wrong. Even though it seems to drive DM crazy, the > truth is that John Resig is a much better salesman, and his product is > beating the pants of DM's "higher quality" product. > > I still believe that the way to combat jQuery and to help fix all the > junk that it has spewed on the web is to create a library with a > compatible subset of the jQuery API, and implement it correctly. Then > people can switch over to it easily and comfortably, and get the > benefit of more robust code. You are in a small subset of developers that use jQuery by choice, yet are also highly critical of it. In fact you might be the only person I've read that shares those characteristics. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just a somewhat unique view. The bulk of jQuery users seem perfectly content with it and the pace of fixes. Even those who recognize there are some shortcomings (like me) find the outstanding issues borderline trivial. To "combat jQuery" you'd need to write a better alternative and convince the user base it's better. The former is likely far easier than the latter. I don't think there's a need to 'combat' jQuery and the other libraries. They will fade away on their own eventually. The major browsers are *finally* headed in the right direction with standardization. As the average user's browser improves jQuery's merits will diminish, as will its usage. When jQuery stops solving a problem, people will stop using it. A few years, I'd guess. Off topic, but looks as though jQuery's looking to ease cross-mobile browser issues next. Mobile remains of little interest to me but should be interesting to watch their approach. http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeresig/sets/72157624180070911/
From: Andrew Poulos on 18 Jun 2010 22:18
On 19/06/2010 9:40 AM, S.T. wrote: > On 6/18/2010 7:12 AM, Matt Kruse wrote: >> On Jun 18, 7:37 am, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn<PointedE...(a)web.de> >> wrote: >>> Matt is still not getting that (JS) libraries as a concept are not >>> the issue, but the people writing them. >> >> Umm, that's not at all what the mantra has been in here for years. >> Over and over and over it has been said by many that general-purpose >> javascript libraries are a bad idea. >> >> My point has always been that general-purpose js libraries are a >> _must_, and if the people with the skill to write them correctly don't >> do so, then someone else will. And other people have. jQuery has lots >> of problems. The coding of it and its design and the way the authors >> attack problems are all quite poor. But it fills a need. > > Exactly. Exactly wrong. > The fact that most CLJ regulars (the vocal ones, at least) can't > comprehend why there's such demand for libraries is the same reason > their critiques of libraries are technically accurate yet largely > ignored. They can't see in context, nor anything less rigid than a > true/false view. There's only a demand because people take on javascript projects that are beyond their skill level. >> Even when someone like DM comes along and writes "His Library", he's >> missing the point. He may get the technical aspects more correct, but >> he lacks the vision and social grace required to make the library >> actually useful to most developers. It's like he's created a better >> mousetrap, but completely drops the ball on manufacturing, marketing, >> and distribution. Whereas something like jQuery suffers from poor >> quality, but gets the other stuff right. > > DM's script may be solid but the project as a whole is a train wreck. It > wasn't a project developed to solve a problem, rather was a script > written in an attempt to mock other libraries. It was DOA before it saw > daylight. DM's library has had little objective criticism and to call it DOA when its usage is clearly growing shows how much you know about it. Why don't you just admit that you have stopped trying to discredit DM as a person and are now trying to discredit his library both of which you apparently know little about. >> Turn on any infomercial and see how ridiculous the product is, yet see >> how many people buy it and how rich the creators are. It doesn't >> matter how great of a product you create if you can't get it out to >> the masses! And if the masses are creating terrible web sites full of >> broken script, and this is the problem that DM is trying to address, >> then he's doing it wrong. Even though it seems to drive DM crazy, the >> truth is that John Resig is a much better salesman, and his product is >> beating the pants of DM's "higher quality" product. First you state that the number or users is inversely proportional to the quality of the product then you state that jQuery is used by a very much larger number of people. And this, you seem to believe, is a reason for the rest of us non-believers to use jQuery as well. >> I still believe that the way to combat jQuery and to help fix all the >> junk that it has spewed on the web is to create a library with a >> compatible subset of the jQuery API, and implement it correctly. Then >> people can switch over to it easily and comfortably, and get the >> benefit of more robust code. > > You are in a small subset of developers that use jQuery by choice, yet > are also highly critical of it. In fact you might be the only person > I've read that shares those characteristics. Not that there's anything > wrong with that, just a somewhat unique view. > > The bulk of jQuery users seem perfectly content with it and the pace of > fixes. Even those who recognize there are some shortcomings (like me) > find the outstanding issues borderline trivial. To "combat jQuery" you'd > need to write a better alternative and convince the user base it's > better. The former is likely far easier than the latter. To "combat jQuery" managers need to hire developers who are skilled in JavaScript. > I don't think there's a need to 'combat' jQuery and the other libraries. > They will fade away on their own eventually. The major browsers are > *finally* headed in the right direction with standardization. As the > average user's browser improves jQuery's merits will diminish, as will > its usage. When jQuery stops solving a problem, people will stop using > it. A few years, I'd guess. Sorry, what direction is the "right direction". Standardising on H.264 for video or an open source codec? > Off topic, but looks as though jQuery's looking to ease cross-mobile > browser issues next. Mobile remains of little interest to me but should > be interesting to watch their approach. > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeresig/sets/72157624180070911/ Test on a number of devices then claim it works almost everywhere. Andrew Poulos |